Search form

You are here

Reading over the packet, I have to say most of it looks really good but one thing that troubles me is the handful of automatic success mechanics. Dealing damage on a miss, always saying hidden with missed ranged attack and things of this nature.

I really dislike these because they feel to much like video game mechanics which I'd argue can be a negative. Failure, on some level is a positive for the table top RPG experience in a way that it isn't in a video game. In a video game, when you fail it is nothing but a road block or a delay. By contrast a failure in D&D can represent an opportunity. A lot of great RPG stories come about when something goes wrong and the party has to react to it. I think mechanics that can't fail ever or eliminate all variables, as opposed to just being very reliable or can only fail under pressure, should be avoided where possible. I don't think these are necessary at all and like in an CCG, players are going to naturally want to try and maximize their ability to "win", and eliminating variables is often the best way to do that, however when you do so it take away a lot of excitement from the game. As the quote goes (assured) "Victory is Boring".

They say however you should always offer an alternative when being critical of something so lets look at automatic damage for example and how we could get a similar feel in 5th without making it a 100% sure thing hopefully getting all the positive of the concept without the negative of assured success. In 3rd edition we have a separate AC for touch attacks. This was mostly so wizards, with their normally crappy to hit, could still successfully strike enemies with to hit attacks. I'd like to throw out similar concept but one that favors fighters.

To explain in Warhammer whole armies can have power armor, which is extremely good protection making it difficult to kill the army any units in the army with very powerful attacks which by pass armor. So how do they get the particularly tough characters stand out? Well one method they employ is to give these characters an invulnerable save, which can never be breached but are often slightly less protection than normal armor. So lets apply this concept to D&D 5.Next.

All characters could have their normal AC and a resistance stat (a touch ac, dodge, shock, toughness, whatever WotC decides fits into D&D best) similar to the old touch AC but more class specific with resistance being easier for some classes to get than others. Instead of attacks that cannot miss, attack that breach a character resistance but not their AC still deal some damage. The idea being that a paladin might have a high resistance, allowing them to go toe to toe with opponent where as a cleric, whom has lower resistance would end up being slowly beaten down from the shock of blows to their armor that the tougher warrior classes shrug off.

List of no-action attacks.Dynamic vs Static BonusesPhalanx tactics and buildsCrivens! A Pictsies GuideGood
Powers to intentionally miss withMr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticedWay's to fire around cornersCrits: what their really worthRetroactive bonus vs Static bonus.Runepriest handbook & discussion threadHoly Symbols to hang around your neckWays to Gain or Downgrade ActionsList of bonuses to saving throwsThe Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Personally i like automatic things. Though i agree that sometime great things comes from failure.

And a "touch attack" is just a Dex save.

Thanks for getting the conversation going, though sadly I'll have to disagree about a touch attack being a dex save. There are lot of things you can do to give yourself bonuses to your attack to help ensure a successful touch attack like catching the enemy by surprise or flanking and things like that. In general it is better when you make the roll as it is much easier to use tactics and options to give yourself bonuses than it is to try and raise the DC an opponent needs to make their save which tends to be pretty arbitrary based on their class and magic items unless you happen to cast a curse on them or something like that. That makes a touch attack more interesting in my mind and adds more to the game than a dex save.

Edit: To be clear I'm not saying you can never have an automatic mechanic, I did like maximizing a spell now and then, but I feel they should be few and probably more for the higher levels. And right now I'm seeing a lot in the play test which is all low level stuff and don't really require anything to get that automatic effect.

Given: There exist some things that should clearly be automatic, such as walking down a flat path without tripping and falling on your face. I've failed that one myself once or twice, but in the course of normal gameplay that sort of thing shouldn't even come up.

Corollary, taken by the rules as they currently stand (and unlikely to change): There are some things that are automatic for some people, some of the time. An ogre smashing down a rotted wooden door shouldn't have to roll anything, but a kobold doing the same might.

Corollary: If your level of skill is sufficient at a task, you shouldn't have to roll. This is more arbitrary, but when you have a rogue scheme bonus to disarming traps that stacks with a similar background bonus and you're trying to disarm a kobold bear-trap, an auto-success might be reasonable.

Corollary: You could have a feat or class feature that basically says, "I'm a badass at this specific task." An auto-success all the time would probably be too much, but always "rolling" at least a 10, or staying hidden when you fail to ambush someone, or even doing a little bit of damage on a miss seems like a reasonable extension.

Now, I will agree with the OP that this stuff should as a rule be reserved for higher levels. But I'm not against a class having one or two minor things like this from the get-go to help define them. Rogue reliability is a great example.

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

I like the automatic modifer damage on a miss and staying hidden when you miss. It makes bad roll not feel like everything leading up to it was a wasted effort. Like when my 3.5 rogue spends a couple rounds setting up an ambush position only to roll a "2" for the one sneak attack he gets out of it.

I like the automatic modifer damage on a miss and staying hidden when you miss. It makes bad roll not feel like everything leading up to it was a wasted effort. Like when my 3.5 rogue spends a couple rounds setting up an ambush position only to roll a "2" for the one sneak attack he gets out of it.

Yeah nothing would suck more than attacking once every 2 rounds is to have to hide after missing. Getting sneak damage right now is hard enough without having to hide after a miss.

I also, agree if you are skilled in something I shouldn't have to roll to do something simple. For example, I do IT for a living. So a lot of things I do and take for granted as easy (I don't roll for) but my mom has a hard enough time turning on her laptop.

In a contest, say arm wrestling, if one participant has a Str 18 and the other has a Str 9, there should be no roll; the Str 18 character should win hands down, instead of Str 18 (+4 mod) rolling a natural 2 and the Str 9 (-1 mod) winning on a natural 8. That contest just shattered my suspense of disbelief.

If the characters come across a stuck wooden door, the strongest character would push it open (DC 15). Given enough time (i.e. non-combat), a character with Str 18 should be able to open it with out a check. (However, anyone on the other side would be able to set up for an ambush while the strongman batters the door in.) In turn, a thief (such as the one in the playtest with a Dex 17) who decides to pick a cheap lock (DC 11) gets a total of +6 to the check. If he has a sufficient amount of stress-free time (again, non-combat), he should be able to open it without a check as it is only a roll of 5 for him to succeed.

Forgive me for not responding to everyone but since most people echoed similar sentiments I'm just going to respond to two people whom I feel pretty much encapsulate the majority of responses. If you don't feel I addressed your point please feel free to reiterate it.

I like the automatic modifer damage on a miss and staying hidden when you miss. It makes bad roll not feel like everything leading up to it was a wasted effort. Like when my 3.5 rogue spends a couple rounds setting up an ambush position only to roll a "2" for the one sneak attack he gets out of it.

Well...I got nothing I can really say to that since it is opinion and style of play. To me, failure is part of the game. If things don't go unexpectedly sometimes I don't even see the point of playing. I'm perfectly capable of telling stories where my characters win all the time without D&D's help.

Don't get me wrong rolling a 2, can indeed be frustrating but that goes for D&D as well as any other game. It is no less frustrating to roll a 2 in Warhammer, Exalted or to draw the wrong card in Magic but it is necessary to have the possibility of failure in the game. Personally I find the idea that I'm hidden no matter what I throw even if I miss in insane breach of logic I personally can't get past. How well I'm hidden shouldn't have anything to do with hitting or missing but rather about how good I spot I found to snipe the enemy from. Too many of these win even when you fail mechanics, particularly at low levels, just seem like putting on god mode in a game; briefly thrilling but ultimately dull. Generally speaking I'd prefer not to see these sort of things until around level 10.

However I'm certainly not going to be the guy who tells people they shouldn't enjoy that, if eliminating the odd failure by 2 makes the game more fun for you, then it makes the game better for you. We can argue which is more logical all day but in the end this is a game where people throw fire balls and laugh off arrows to the face, so clearly Fun > Logic as a general rule. I can only speak for myself and the experience I would enjoy most and I think that just differs here.

I also disagree with the OP.

In a contest, say arm wrestling, if one participant has a Str 18 and the other has a Str 9, there should be no roll; the Str 18 character should win hands down, instead of Str 18 (+4 mod) rolling a natural 2 and the Str 9 (-1 mod) winning on a natural 8. That contest just shattered my suspense of disbelief.

There is a difference between simply not being required to roll by the GM, which would be the case here, and succeeding no matter what I roll. In this case the GM should just declare it no contest and move on unless there was some dramatic reason like the warrior was exhausted after fighting his was through hell to get to said arm wrestling contest.

But lets take the concept of success regardless of dice here. So if the character succeeds they slam the strength 9 guys arm into the table where as if they fail they only inch towards victory. What is the point than? Maybe I'm missing it, but having a roll determine if I inch towards victory or not just dominate my foe is pretty pointless which is how I see things like always successful attacks.

If the characters come across a stuck wooden door, the strongest character would push it open (DC 15). Given enough time (i.e. non-combat), a character with Str 18 should be able to open it with out a check. (However, anyone on the other side would be able to set up for an ambush while the strongman batters the door in.) In turn, a thief (such as the one in the playtest with a Dex 17) who decides to pick a cheap lock (DC 11) gets a total of +6 to the check. If he has a sufficient amount of stress-free time (again, non-combat), he should be able to open it without a check as it is only a roll of 5 for him to succeed.

On this point I agree actually, after a fashion, which is why in previous editions one could aways take a 10 on unstressed tasks which I actually like. Or in other game systems rolls such as these do not determine if the character succeeds or not since it should be a matter of determination as opposed to skill but rather how long it takes to complete the task. A character with strength 18 should be able to batter down a door given enough time, but there is a world of difference is just saying "well you are strong so the door just breaks" and making people play it out where dramatically appropriate.

Where we really disagree here (I think) is that I feel the GM should be deciding when it is appropriate to hand wave these things and move the game along vs what we have now which is a mechanic that rewards you for failing (even in the middle of very chaotic or difficult situations were success would be far from assured).

So in summation: *Is a dice roll an arbitrary thing? Absolutely.

*Are there time when the GM should step in because a roll would be trivial, the system fails to logically address the situation or the PC failing at the task would be ridiculous? Of course.

*Is there a place for these sort of things in the game: Yes and implemented properly I think certainly agree can be very exciting. I was a fan back in 2E when the Kensai had the ability to maximize their damage on attacks a few times a day for example.

*Should a level 3 character be "too good to fail" on every attack they make? Well here I think we disagree.

I like the automatic modifer damage on a miss and staying hidden when you miss.

I don't like automatic damage on a miss. I wouldn't mind if it was a once-per-day-per-level thing, or something like that, but not a free thing that every fighter can get. Or maybe, if you miss you roll another attack to see if you do a bit of damage. But not "if you miss you still do a bit of damage because you're so awesome". If you miss, you miss.

Staying hidden: I don't mind that so much, because in the heat of battle, someone might not see an arrow flying past them (unless it was very close). I never liked the way how, in games like Oblivion, as soon as you shoot an arrow at someone they instantly know exactly where you are, even if you shot the arrow from 100 yards away from the top floor of a building hidden behind a pair of shutters. I do think, however, that your target should get a free chance to spot you, but if they don't then you stay hidden. Or that you have to roll to stay hidden. But you shouldn't be instantly revealed in all of your glory the moment the arrow leaves your bow.

Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!

Staying hidden: I don't mind that so much, because in the heat of battle, someone might not see an arrow flying past them (unless it was very close). I never liked the way how, in games like Oblivion, as soon as you shoot an arrow at someone they instantly know exactly where you are, even if you shot the arrow from 100 yards away from the top floor of a building hidden behind a pair of shutters. I do think, however, that your target should get a free chance to spot you, but if they don't then you stay hidden. Or that you have to roll to stay hidden. But you shouldn't be instantly revealed in all of your glory the moment the arrow leaves your bow.

I see it more as not attacking, and simply waiting for a more opportune moment.

"8 vs AC, his shield has been pointing in my direction the whole time, so i wait".

List of no-action attacks.Dynamic vs Static BonusesPhalanx tactics and buildsCrivens! A Pictsies GuideGood
Powers to intentionally miss withMr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticedWay's to fire around cornersCrits: what their really worthRetroactive bonus vs Static bonus.Runepriest handbook & discussion threadHoly Symbols to hang around your neckWays to Gain or Downgrade ActionsList of bonuses to saving throwsThe Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Staying hidden: I don't mind that so much, because in the heat of battle, someone might not see an arrow flying past them (unless it was very close). I never liked the way how, in games like Oblivion, as soon as you shoot an arrow at someone they instantly know exactly where you are, even if you shot the arrow from 100 yards away from the top floor of a building hidden behind a pair of shutters. I do think, however, that your target should get a free chance to spot you, but if they don't then you stay hidden. Or that you have to roll to stay hidden. But you shouldn't be instantly revealed in all of your glory the moment the arrow leaves your bow.

I see it more as not attacking, and simply waiting for a more opportune moment.

"8 vs AC, his shield has been pointing in my direction the whole time, so i wait".

Maybe but I'm pretty much that person will still be missing an arrow from their inventory. I do get what you are saying though and that is a reasonable way to look at it, but that still doesn't really sit well with me the idea of a non-action the player did, yet didn't, take at the same time.

Might it not be a better approach to just make the skill more reliable? Like rolling 2d20 when attacking at range from hiding and if either of them hit the attack is a success?

Maybe but I'm pretty much that person will still be missing an arrow from their inventory. I do get what you are saying though and that is a reasonable way to look at it, but that still doesn't really sit well with me the idea of a non-action the player did, yet didn't, take at the same time.

Looking for an opening for 6 seconds but not finding anything is a perfectly reasonable "action". Same thing as you do in melee.

Though your right about the arrow.

Might it not be a better approach to just make the skill more reliable? Like rolling 2d20 when attacking at range from hiding and if either of them hit the attack is a success?

That already happens.

When your hidden and attack, you get advantage (2d20, take the highest).

List of no-action attacks.Dynamic vs Static BonusesPhalanx tactics and buildsCrivens! A Pictsies GuideGood
Powers to intentionally miss withMr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticedWay's to fire around cornersCrits: what their really worthRetroactive bonus vs Static bonus.Runepriest handbook & discussion threadHoly Symbols to hang around your neckWays to Gain or Downgrade ActionsList of bonuses to saving throwsThe Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

When your hidden and attack, you get advantage (2d20, take the highest).

I'm throwing that out as an example of something which I like that they've done should do more stuff in that same vein.

I know this isn't an apples to apples example, as the a rogue could reasonably stay hidden on a miss in many situations depending on the conditions of his attack, but this auto-hide comes off the same to me as if the warrior had a power that put him on full defense anytime they missed with a melee attack.

It isn't that is broken or the worse thing in the world, I see what they were going for, but at the same time I really dislike how when you fail it is basically just a different type of success.

I know this isn't an apples to apples example, as the a rogue could reasonably stay hidden on a miss in many situations depending on the conditions of his attack, but this auto-hide comes off the same to me as if the warrior had a power that put him on full defense anytime they missed with a melee attack.

List of no-action attacks.Dynamic vs Static BonusesPhalanx tactics and buildsCrivens! A Pictsies GuideGood
Powers to intentionally miss withMr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticedWay's to fire around cornersCrits: what their really worthRetroactive bonus vs Static bonus.Runepriest handbook & discussion threadHoly Symbols to hang around your neckWays to Gain or Downgrade ActionsList of bonuses to saving throwsThe Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

I know this isn't an apples to apples example, as the a rogue could reasonably stay hidden on a miss in many situations depending on the conditions of his attack, but this auto-hide comes off the same to me as if the warrior had a power that put him on full defense anytime they missed with a melee attack.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable ability.

It isn't that is broken or the worse thing in the world, I see what they were going for, but at the same time I really dislike how when you fail it is basically just a different type of success.

Well I like it a lot.

It's not like the rogue can never fail at anything. We're talking about a rogue sniping while a hidden, basically when he is in absolutely perfect rogue conditions. I don't think it adds anything for a character to put himself in the absolute ideal situation for his class and build and then fall on his face 25% (or so) of the time, losing all of his advantages from several rounds of actions.

The result of these mechanics is that the player chooses between putting himself in a situation where he can fail hard or where he can fail soft. There definitely needs to be some way for characters to mitigate the effects of a miss or failure, especially martial classes who currently don't do anything but roll basic attacks.

I know this isn't an apples to apples example, as the a rogue could reasonably stay hidden on a miss in many situations depending on the conditions of his attack, but this auto-hide comes off the same to me as if the warrior had a power that put him on full defense anytime they missed with a melee attack.

That could be a fun feat.

If you miss with an attack, you gain +2 to AC and Ref.

Well I guess we just see the game differently than 'cause that doesn't sound very fun to me unfortunately.

I guess it boils down to I feel that, for the most part, abilities should help you succeed at things rather than make failing better. Like I said there isn't anything wrong with it per-say, I totally get how it makes rolling a 1 or a 2 less frustrating but the concept just doesn't appeal, to me at least.

I guess it boils down to I feel that, for the most part, abilities should help you succeed at things rather than make failing better. Like I said there isn't anything wrong with it per-say, I totally get how it makes rolling a 1 or a 2 less frustrating but the concept just doesn't appeal, to me at least.

I much, much prefer the latter.

The problem with all abilities making success more likely is that stacking them becomes the key to success. The devs have to work out exactly how all of the various abilities that give +1 to your attacks stack, meaning they have to reintroduce things like feat, power, and racial bonuses (and players need to figure out how to interpret them). Then the benefit of all of those various bonuses have to be balanced amongst and across each other or else you inevitably end up with ridiculous builds that succeed 95% of the time, and that one time you roll 1 it's still insanely frustrating.

I'd much rather characters have an upper limit of success rate, and after that they improve by mitigating the effects of a miss.

If you have an 18 in your attack stat, advantage, and you wield a racial weapon you're already going to hit something like 80% of the time given the monsters in the packet. Making that other 20% of the time something less than just a trombone beat is preferable to handing out more +1s.

Meanwhile effect-on-a-miss mechanics also provide benefits to the guy with a 14 in his attack stat and wielding a non-racial weapon, whereas without them he would simply be unplayable.

All of the mechanics you have highlighted apply in very specific circumstances. It's not like the game has done away with failure entirely. And with the fighter's damage output on hit, that piddling miss damage is little more than a consolation prize.

I also strongly oppose introducing new, complicated mechanics like resistance when we have the tools for mitigating the effects of a miss already at our disposal in the form of damage on a miss. If you want to argue that these extra defensive stats (in addition to the 7 we already have!) you propose will allow some other advantage, then fine. Otherwise you are introducing complexity for the sake of complexity which is always a bad idea.

I do not see missing in combat as a very specific circumstance. In fact it happens fairly regularly.

Failure shouldn't be cushioned, it is failure. If failure becomes just less success in really cheapens game play and discourages trying to be tactical. We've already got a lot of of the "I'll just hack till he falls 'cause I got more HP" game play.

Of course rolling a one can be frustrating, it is supposed to be. Borrowing a term from MTG, it is anti-fun. But if failure has no real consequence due to clever mitigation, (which can easily happen when you start to stack mitigation effects) then who is really going to get excited when they succeed?

Instead of a +1 to hit or a consolation prize couldn't the rogues:

1. A possible stun on the opponent2. A bonus to disrupting spell casting3. Allow them to take a second attack when attacking from cover.

I really think there is enough design space that we don't have to rely so heavily on these sort of mechanics or stacking pluses. I agree with those who suggest that suggest you should see abilities, powers and spell expand not just linearly stack and grow more powerful with progressively larger numbers. Ideally imagination and tactics should be providing a fair amount of combat advantage which I agree isn't what happens when almost everything gives out a bonus to hit.

As for how many defense mechanics we need, well it was just a suggestion. As I said when I posted it, they say you should always have an alternative rather than just saying NOOOOOOOOO when you are opposed to something and suggesting it should be changed. I'm not saying it is the only solution nor the ideal one, just one alternative.

List of no-action attacks.Dynamic vs Static BonusesPhalanx tactics and buildsCrivens! A Pictsies GuideGood
Powers to intentionally miss withMr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticedWay's to fire around cornersCrits: what their really worthRetroactive bonus vs Static bonus.Runepriest handbook & discussion threadHoly Symbols to hang around your neckWays to Gain or Downgrade ActionsList of bonuses to saving throwsThe Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

1. A possible stun on the opponent2. A bonus to disrupting spell casting3. Allow them to take a second attack when attacking from cover.

None of those things are mutually exclusive with also providing benefits on a miss.

Also I find this continued reliance upon "there's no penalty for failure" arguments on your part to be more than a little absurd. We're talking about really minor benefits here. When the fighter attacks, he's not trying to deal 3 damage, he is trying to deal 1d10+3 damage. When the rogue attacks from hidden, he is not trying to stay hidden, or else he would not have attacked. Stop making these dishonest statements. You sound like a reasonable person in 9/10s of your post and then you bust out some fundamentally asinine statement like "it's a video game mechanic" (WTF does that even mean?) or "Nobody will care if they fail or succeed." These are ridiculous assertions. If missing were so important to people we wouldn't have 30 years of "half damage on a save" or "the magic missile strikes unerringly."

If you don't like themes that mitigate the effects of a miss, don't take them.

1. A possible stun on the opponent2. A bonus to disrupting spell casting3. Allow them to take a second attack when attacking from cover.

None of those things are mutually exclusive with also providing benefits on a miss.

Also I find this continued reliance upon "there's no penalty for failure" arguments on your part to be more than a little absurd. We're talking about really minor benefits here. When the fighter attacks, he's not trying to deal 3 damage, he is trying to deal 1d10+3 damage. When the rogue attacks from hidden, he is not trying to stay hidden, or else he would not have attacked. Stop making these dishonest statements. You sound like a reasonable person in 9/10s of your post and then you bust out some fundamentally asinine statement like "it's a video game mechanic" (WTF does that even mean?) or "Nobody will care if they fail or succeed." These are ridiculous assertions. If missing were so important to people we wouldn't have 30 years of "half damage on a save" or "the magic missile strikes unerringly."

If you don't like themes that mitigate the effects of a miss, don't take them.

The fact that you cannot alter your view point enough to see my own doesn't make my argument absurd, if you do not understand them ask me to explain myself.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about 'minor' benefits because:

A. Reliability is a very large asset. Being able to rely on 3 damage no matter what else happens is a huge asset even if the damage is small.B. As we well know it is typically very easy to stack abilities. Is it so inconceivable that you could stack just slayer the rogue's ability to stay hidden together and that right there alone is a really good combination? If rules allow you to work in something like poison it could well become preferable to miss each turn.C. These can easily be used to unbalance other abilities. Let us suppose flurry is an ability in 5E for example is usually a trade off because unless you are in a good position the extra attacks will fail. You may well opt to flurry now knowing you'll at least do 6 damage even if you miss both attacks which is pretty good when a single attack only does an average of 8.

Second of course a rogue is trying to stay hidden. They should be trying to stay hidden however no matter if their attack hits or misses. Hitting should not ensure a rogue with a good hiding spot is exposed any more then a miss should ensure they stay hidden.

3rd the statement Video Game mechanic is just what it says. A mechanic based strictly on a set of rules, such as how video games, not a role playing or logic. In a video game the dodges 20% of the time because that is what he is programed to do, because they are limited and can't take into account other factors creating a more varied scenario. Similarly we are boiling the game down to, I'm not seen when I attack because my game mechanic won't let me be seen.

Concerning spells, these are allowed to be more reliable because in previous editions they were meant to be more powerful. Their reliability was a reward for their limitations since they couldn't be used over and over. If you go look at the play test many people have been complaining that magic missile cannot miss and can be cast every turn. A vast majority (that I've read) conclude in needs to be limited and should be made a slotted first level spell again or should have to roll giving it the possibility of failure. Yes people right on this forum are saying it is important to be able to miss and make repeatable spells less consistent at least at the early levels of game play.

Finally I can't ignore these, I wish I could, because they are going to be everywhere. If I dislike the spell Time Stop, I can of course ignore it. The spell doesn't come up much, I don't have to cast and I can let go when an NPC casts it. These however are, at least in this draft, plentiful, in all the classes it looks like and there right from the start of the game. That makes if very difficult to ignore them.

Even if I could this is a forum for feedback. I am giving that. If I'm in the minority, well that is too bad for me. 5E isn't being made for my benefit and I just one opinion among many. However just because I can ignore them is not reason not to give feedback. I could just ignore this whole game after all, but that would not be very fun and I hope 5E will be very fun.

As we well know it is typically very easy to stack abilities. Is it so inconceivable that you could stack just slayer the rogue's ability to stay hidden together and that right there alone is a really good combination? If rules allow you to work in something like poison it could well become preferable to miss each turn.

I have a 4e handbook for that stuff in my sig.

I see no reason why a "i suck so bad i'm good" character shouldn't exsist. It's not like he's going to be better then someone who put all his abilities into succeding, and it would be fun to play a drunken, incomptent, kobold assassin (which is about all he'd be good at doing).

YOU might not like to play him. But i certainly would. Removing that stuff would hurt me. Leaving it in doesn't hurt you.

List of no-action attacks.Dynamic vs Static BonusesPhalanx tactics and buildsCrivens! A Pictsies GuideGood
Powers to intentionally miss withMr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticedWay's to fire around cornersCrits: what their really worthRetroactive bonus vs Static bonus.Runepriest handbook & discussion threadHoly Symbols to hang around your neckWays to Gain or Downgrade ActionsList of bonuses to saving throwsThe Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

But what is a miss? The damage on a mss feat says it "makes all your attacks close calls".

A slayer's attacks are so aggressive, powerful, and focused, that even when he or she fails to touch the target (Dex to AC), connects with the target's armor (Armor to AC), or is blocked by the target's shield (shield)...

it still hurts or causes the target to waste stamina dodging.

Slayer cause bruises through armor, knock shields into your face, and scare enemies with their attacks that they panic and jump back. I have a sparring buddy like this. He's so slow and predictable but he's also so strong and aggressive that you are exhausted and hurt from self defense despite him never connecting.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

But what is a miss? The damage on a mss feat says it "makes all your attacks close calls".

A slayer's attacks are so aggressive, powerful, and focused, that even when he or she fails to touch the target (Dex to AC), connects with the target's armor (Armor to AC), or is blocked by the target's shield (shield)...

it still hurts or causes the target to waste stamina dodging.

Slayer cause bruises through armor, knock shields into your face, and scare enemies with their attacks that they panic and jump back. I have a sparring buddy like this. He's so slow and predictable but he's also so strong and aggressive that you are exhausted and hurt from self defense despite him never connecting.

I see your point, but...come on, EVERY attack? So no matter what happens, the slayer, basically, never misses? So every creature with less than 4 HP (assuming maxed out strength) is dead the moment the Slayer looks at him, and he can't do anything about it? And there is no disadvantage whatsoever to this ability?

Doesn't that seem just a little bit unbalancing to anyone else - to be able to constantly get free hits worth whatever his strength bonus is? Something like that should be a once-per-day ability that lasts a number of rounds per level, after which the slayer is fatigued and suffers a strength penalty for an hour. Or it should be a style of fighting that the slayer can choose to enter, and doing so gives him an AC penalty, since his relentless attacks mean that he doesn't focus on defence (I know what you're going to say - "the target is too busy trying to defend himself", but that won't stop someone sneaking up on him and hitting him while he focuses on relentlessly attacking the person in front of him). Or something like that...it isn't fair that anyone has a free auto-hit that they can use at will, with no penalty whatsoever.

Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!

I guess it boils down to I feel that, for the most part, abilities should help you succeed at things rather than make failing better.

Problem with abilities like that is they are effectively a feat tax if something you pick optionally, because they are so useful you just have to have them. So what they have done is built those abilities into the Fighter already, with his +1 to attack and +2 damage bonuses.

I guess it boils down to I feel that, for the most part, abilities should help you succeed at things rather than make failing better.

Problem with abilities like that is they are effectively a feat tax if something you pick optionally, because they are so useful you just have to have them. So what they have done is built those abilities into the Fighter already, with his +1 to attack and +2 damage bonuses.

Honestly, most feats look solidly blanced to me. I don't see any that i would automaticly take over another.

If anything, slayer seems like one of the weaker ones (the first is ambush, and possibly herbalist, depending on how fast the money grows). Sure it's great when fighting things that have 3 HP, but less so when fighting ogers, and anything higher level. Unless you get alot of stat boosts, i don't see it being very useful at high levels.

List of no-action attacks.Dynamic vs Static BonusesPhalanx tactics and buildsCrivens! A Pictsies GuideGood
Powers to intentionally miss withMr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticedWay's to fire around cornersCrits: what their really worthRetroactive bonus vs Static bonus.Runepriest handbook & discussion threadHoly Symbols to hang around your neckWays to Gain or Downgrade ActionsList of bonuses to saving throwsThe Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

But what is a miss? The damage on a mss feat says it "makes all your attacks close calls".

A slayer's attacks are so aggressive, powerful, and focused, that even when he or she fails to touch the target (Dex to AC), connects with the target's armor (Armor to AC), or is blocked by the target's shield (shield)...

it still hurts or causes the target to waste stamina dodging.

Slayer cause bruises through armor, knock shields into your face, and scare enemies with their attacks that they panic and jump back. I have a sparring buddy like this. He's so slow and predictable but he's also so strong and aggressive that you are exhausted and hurt from self defense despite him never connecting.

I see your point, but...come on, EVERY attack? So no matter what happens, the slayer, basically, never misses? So every creature with less than 4 HP (assuming maxed out strength) is dead the moment the Slayer looks at him, and he can't do anything about it? And there is no disadvantage whatsoever to this ability?

Doesn't that seem just a little bit unbalancing to anyone else - to be able to constantly get free hits worth whatever his strength bonus is? Something like that should be a once-per-day ability that lasts a number of rounds per level, after which the slayer is fatigued and suffers a strength penalty for an hour. Or it should be a style of fighting that the slayer can choose to enter, and doing so gives him an AC penalty, since his relentless attacks mean that he doesn't focus on defence (I know what you're going to say - "the target is too busy trying to defend himself", but that won't stop someone sneaking up on him and hitting him while he focuses on relentlessly attacking the person in front of him). Or something like that...it isn't fair that anyone has a free auto-hit that they can use at will, with no penalty whatsoever.

The problem with very "realistic" mechanics is sometime they are clunky or defeat the goal of the game. Always one is simpler.

But perhaps it could cost the slayer his reaction too. He is going all out. Might not be so aware of things.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The problem with very "realistic" mechanics is sometime they are clunky or defeat the goal of the game. Always one is simpler.

Be that as it may, I'd rather "clunky" realistic mechanics than one where you just announce your intent and the GM states "you have won" (to take the other extreme). :p

But perhaps it could cost the slayer his reaction too. He is going all out. Might not be so aware of things.

That could work.

Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!

The Wizard has been never missing for 20 years. The slayer package is a pittance by comparison. Also, here's hoping that extra 3 damage every round is balanced within the options of packages we have yet to see.

True, but he had to spend a daily slot of "never misses", having prepared them in advance.

The slayer's "never miss", in its current form, has no disadvantages whatsoever. All I'm saying is: it should. It should be a method by which he can choose to fight, but doing so sacrifices some defence/mobility/reaction/something that'll adversely affect him if someone attacks him.

You know how the 3rd edition feat Power Attack gave you more damage, but at the expense of a to-hit penalty? Well, this ability is a bit like having Power Attack as a free feat, only you don't get the to-hit penalty, just the extra damage.

Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!

What about having a miss cause you to have to roll a new hide check with disadvantage (or grants the target advantage on spot, whichever way feels better) as a rogue and a hit auto makes you seen. For other character either result makes you visible. Or Maybe if you want to be nicer to rogues (only, or other rogue-like classes Ranger, Assassin, etc. that develop later) then have the system work like this:

While hiding if you make an attack: you must roll another hide check after attacking with disadvantage, if you hit anyone that sees the attack land gains advantage to perceive/find you.

This would make you really easy to find on hits, and slightly easier to find on misses. (Sort of like the old -20 to hide checks in 3rd ed.)

Fighter Modifier Damage on Miss:

As for the fighter deals mod damage on a miss, I really disliked that in 4th edition and now 5th but my players really like it a lot (my players hate 4th for reference, I don't mind it as a DM), so I'm not sure what to say about that other than fun is the key determining factor to me. If you want another option; what about making a natural 1 still misses but otherwise a miss deals damage modifier damage (for fighters with that ability). If you really want it more tough then maybe make the player roll a 2nd time (if the first misses) and if that hits then it deals modifier damage (if not it misses completely).

Criticals Max Damage:

Max damage for criticals (not sure if this was implied) seems fine to me because in 3rd (my group's preferred edition) it got pretty scary with critical hit multiplies and insane modifiers getting multiplied (throw in charge and even sillier results ensue)

Touch AC:

I really like touch AC but holy crud did that and flatfooted take a while to explain to new players (especially with all the modifiers), and took time in game especially when 1 or multiple modifiers needed to be removed or added to alternate types of ACs as things happened in combat. However for the more experienced players in my group I loved how touch AC allowed me as a DM to describe a throwing axe sticking into someone plate armor or shield because it missed the players AC but hit touch, or when having other players stand in front to block shots, saying they can't dodge/avoid the attack or it hits their ward but flatfooted AC is fine.

D20-Variance:

I think the variance on the D20 is a bit high so that’s why people tend to favor large bonuses or auto-hits/effects (I believe there is a whole topic on d20 random variance in these boards somewhere). But because a large part of most abilities (attacks, saves, skills, etc.) require a d20 roll, it becomes possible to become extremely unlucky, I have had this turn out to wreck entire game sessions. So having a miss once or twice when unexpected is fine having it happen more often than that can be un-fun so for that reason I'm not strongly opposed to auto-success if used correctly and sparingly.

Strength Rolls:

I think you guys figured this one out, but I'll just add I never liked the rules being written (I know I could just veto as a DM but...) so that players needed to make strength checks to open doors, lift things, etc. it never really made sense either you are strong enough or not. I usually interpreted the checks to mean that you took a while to maybe preform the task due to it being a little awkward but then I had no real explanation for when the tiny goblin stepped in and lifted the boulder by rolling a 20. So in that sense I like the rules clearly stating when it makes sense don't bother rolling (even though I often did that anyways). On this one I think the DM should be the one that decides if the check is needed or not

In Closing:

Sorry for the long post just some of my random thoughts, I don’t actually feel strongly one way or the other but thought I’d try and provide some possible options.

I think I preferred the 2nd edition method of rolling under your Strength score on a D20. That way, a person with a high Strength has significantly more chance of success (with really heavy things giving penalties).

The one thing I really don't like about that, however, is opposed strength rolls. Imagine a situation where two people are arm-wrestling - one is a bodybuilder, the other is a weakling.

Bodybuilder: D20+4 (potential score of 5-24)

Weakling: D20-1 (potential score of 0-19)

This gives a very small margin, and makes it quite possible for the weakling to win several matches, when in reality, the bodybuilder should win an arm-wrestle every time. If the weakling rolls a 20, the bodybuilder must roll at least 15 just to stay in the game - if he rolls less, he loses?? Um...no.

Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!

I’m tempted to just roll a d4 for arm-wrestling (or other similar tasks) to represent the daily wellness of each participant, the current conditions, some minor random luck (when to pull against, etc like minor tactics), etc.

If you think more random factors should apply change my idea to a d6 or d8, like if both contestants are drunk, maybe you think a mental aspect applies, getting in the head of the opponent, etc. add whatever you like. This is essentially a mini-game within the game. It would be like trying to get a perfect representation of a d20 roll for two players playing poker, until you get the cards out it’s only an approximation. Don't feel constrained to a d20 if you don't want the huge variance, or just remove the rolls altogether for things that don't make sense. The roll covers things that are out of control of the parties like minor weather (random gust of wind), split second strategies (bob left, duck, pull now, tighten grasp, taunt opponent, etc.), luck, conditions (high altitude, crowd cheering you on), wellbeing (Maybe one person is slightly under top condition), minor surroundings (the pebble, dust falling from the ceiling, crack in the wall letting the sun in your eyes), etc. Granted some of those could be controlled and some might be major concerns but you get the idea, so that being said I feel there is still some random factors to even an arm-wrestling match, but that’s just my opinion.

In response to the OP's overall sentiment, I whole-heartedly agree. The absolutism of many elements in the playtest was easily one of the things about it I want changed most. I have no problems with Rogues getting bonuses to remaining hidden, or dwarves getting bonuses vs poison, even very hefty bonuses, advantage, or 'guaranteed if the DC is < x'; but the 'nope, never, no matter what' approach really bothers me.

As for contests of strength, is says in the older-ed rulebooks that direct, no-possible-variance contests like arm-wrestling are not rolled but determined simply by whoever has the higher score. I suspect it will be the same in 5e.

True, but he had to spend a daily slot of "never misses", having prepared them in advance.

The wizard now never misses with his at-will magic missle. And the attacks that 'save for half' deal closer to full damage than the fighter's "str mod vs. weapon dice + ability mod + slayer bonus + two handed bonus".

The slayer's "never miss", in its current form, has no disadvantages whatsoever. All I'm saying is: it should. It should be a method by which he can choose to fight, but doing so sacrifices some defence/mobility/reaction/something that'll adversely affect him if someone attacks him.

It does have a trade off. By taking THAT feat/theme, you didn't take a DIFFERENT feat/theme.

You know how the 3rd edition feat Power Attack gave you more damage, but at the expense of a to-hit penalty? Well, this ability is a bit like having Power Attack as a free feat, only you don't get the to-hit penalty, just the extra damage.

It's not a free feat though. It's the feat they took. You don't have to 'decide to use it', but it's still a feat they had to select.